DON’T GIVE UP ON THE CUP
If the Breeders’ Cup board of directors and management thought the decision last month to reinstate the stakes supplement program in 2009 (less than a week after voting to suspend it) was going to quiet any dissenting voices, they were wrong. A scathing commentary on the Breeders’ Cup, written by longtime owner and breeder Peter Blum and appearing in the Jan. 10, 2009, edition of the Thoroughbred Times, states publicly what a number of nominators to the program have been saying privately for some time: the Breeders’ Cup has lost its way.
Blum’s commentary is a must read. If you’re not a subscriber to the Thoroughbred Times (the article, unfortunately, is not available online), do yourself a favor and beg, borrow or steal a copy of the Jan. 10 issue.
Blum insists the Breeders’ Cup will not be living up to its mission if the board eliminates the stakes supplements after 2009, as many fear will happen. Board chairman Bill Farish said the reinstatement applied only to 2009. Blum suggests some of the Breeders’ Cup leaders “mirror the problems that characterize virtually all of our industry’s leadership; they are uncreative, self-serving, arrogant, out of touch, and not mindful of their constituents.”
He also questions the investment strategy for the organization’s cash reserves, saying the “mismanagement of our money amounts to a serious breach of trust and a failure of fiduciary responsibility.” Blum said he is appalled by compensation packages for and lack of accountability by top management, and believes voting for board of director seats is “skewed.”
His conclusion is a call to action by others who have similar feelings: “We have lost the Breeders’ Cup as it was defined in its original mission statement,” Blum wrote. “It is time for breeders to take it back.”
Blum’s plea should serve as a reminder for breeders throughout the country not to give up on the program and continue to nominate their stallions and foals. The financial backbone of the nominations remains in Kentucky, but every single stallion or foal nominator is a stakeholder in the program who has the opportunity to vote in the annual election of members and trustees. Those members and trustees decide who sits on the Breeders’ Cup board, so the elections are critically important. As citizens of Florida in 2000 and Minnesota in 2008 learned, every vote matters.
It will be interesting to see how the Breeders’ Cup reacts to Blum’s commentary. Will board chairman Farish and CEO Greg Avioli chant a “this too shall pass” mantra and instead focus on a behind-the-scenes strategy to ensure the balance of power on the Breeders’ Cup board of members and trustees remains in their favor when 13 of them are elected later this year? Will they use a vehicle like Bloodhorse magazine, on whose board Farish sits, to respond to Blum’s criticism?
The Breeders’ Cup is not just feeling heat from breeders. There is more than a little sentiment throughout the industry that the expansion of the former one-day, eight-race program to a two-day, 14-race event has diluted the championships among American fans (while, admittedly, increasing interest for European horsemen). Additionally, many racing fans were vocal in their disapproval of the Breeders’ Cup moving all of the filly and mare races to the Friday program in 2008.
The Oak Tree Racing Association, which opted to guarantee $5 million in revenue to the Breeders’ Cup for hosting the 2008 championships at Santa Anita Park, reportedly fell more than $2 million short because of weak ticket sales and lower than anticipated on-track handle. I imagine Oak Tree officials aren’t thrilled with that deal right now. The two sides have been busy working on a settlement that will not jeopardize the Cup’s scheduled return to Santa Anita in 2009.
The growing criticism of the Breeders’ Cup is no small matter. By many accounts, its creation more than 25 years ago was one of the most positive developments the sport has ever seen. No one – including breeders, owners, jockeys, trainers, racetrack companies and racing fans – wants this enormous industry asset to be lost in a maze created through poor leadership.
Copyright © 2009, The Paulick Report
Visit the Paulick Report for all the latest news throughout the racing world.
Sign up for our Email Flashes to get the latest news, analysis and commentary.
Tags: 2008 breeders' cup, Bill Farish, Breeders' Cup, Breeders' Cup board of directors, breeders' cup cash reserves, Breeders' Cup championships, breeders' cup election, breeders' cup investments, breeders' cup nominators, filly friday, Greg Avioli, Horse Racing, oak tree racing association, Paulick Report, peter blum, Ray Paulick, thoroughbred breeders, thoroughbred times, william farish jr.
January 12th, 2009 at 9:20 am
Peter Blum points to the sentence, “This objective is achieved through a multi-million-dollar year-round racing and promotional program,” as key in a paragraph from a recent Breeders’ Cup annual report. I’d point to an earlier sentence in same, “The primary goal of the Breeders’ Cup Ltd. is to build broad-based positive public awareness of Thoroughbred racing.” This is what the Breeders’ Cup has lost sight of — the good of racing. When I and several other fans attended a meeting with BC execs Peter Rotondo and Peter Land last November, Land spoke at length about how they were working to turn the Breeders’ Cup into a major event for the average sports fan, something akin to the US Open or the NBA All-Star game. “If you’re a sports fan,” Land said, “you have to be there.” He went on to say that the reason they make the decisions they do is to bring more people to the event. Pressed on what such a focus meant for a racing as a whole, Land was candid, telling us that, although the BC was “not insensitive to the needs of racing,” the aim of changes was “not the sport, unfortunately,” but to “help the Breeders’ Cup more than the sport.” That acknowledgment came early in the meeting and for me, it defined the entire talk and has informed everything I’ve read about the BC since — the Breeders’ Cup doesn’t exist now to increase positive awareness of Thoroughbred racing, it exists to increase positive awareness of the Breeders’ Cup. That’s a very different mission than the one with which it began.
January 12th, 2009 at 9:57 am
They keep running the BC on the poly and you won’t have to worry about it’s existence. The bettors will see to that.
January 12th, 2009 at 10:08 am
If what Jessica says is accurate, the Breeders’ Cup board has the responsibility to take some action. It should either 1) adopt a new mission statement and goals for the organization that reflect its management’s philosophy 2) require its highly paid executives read what the mission and goals of the Breeders’ Cup are or 3) fire Peter Land and bring in someone who will executive a plan that fulfills the mission and goals as they are written.
It’s very simple. They must do something.
January 12th, 2009 at 10:54 am
I don’t see anything inconsistent in the BC mission and what Peter Land may have said. How can the Breeders’ Cup possibly be tasked with trying to fix everything that’s wrong with this industry? A stronger Breeders’ Cup — a bigger event that attracts more attention to the sport — is good for the game.
The Breeders’ Cup has been successful in giving our sport its fourth (and fifth) “big day.” While certainly not on the level of the Triple Crown, in part due to the time of year when it is run and the Triple Crown’s 100-year head start, the Breeders’ Cup is another time when the mainstream media pays attention to the sport and it certainly gives lots of owners and horsemen something to point toward and major purses to run for, especially with the expansion to two days and 14 races. It may be a nice benefit for nominators, but new money doesn’t jump into the game to run for $3 million in stakes purses spread across 150 races at tracks from Seattle to Saratoga.
I read Peter Blum’s Thoroughbred Times piece, Ray, and most of it was name-calling. Nice of you to give it a second-life here for those who might have missed it.
January 12th, 2009 at 10:59 am
When The Breeders Cup tried to change it’s moniker a few years back to “The World Thoroughbred Championship”, it became apparent that the original goal of The Breeders Cup had changed. When The Breeders Cup added a second day (FRIDAY?!?), the most common response was, “WHY?”
The reason is simple…The More “Champions” crowned, the more enticing it is to breeders to nominate their steed! Much in the way BOXING lost it’s credibility by creating more & more “Champions” thru additional weight classes & bogus belts, THE BREEDERS CUP has determined they can extract more money from owners/bredders thru quanitiy, NOT quality. A rudderless boat is a dangerous thing…
January 12th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
i enjoyed this year’s BC immensely. The concept of giving the fillies their own day makes a lot of sense in terms of viewer enjoyment. Combining male-female races gives the aura to the filly race–”let’s get this over with, and get to the real stuff”–whereas an all-female race day makes you sit back and enjoy the competition before you.
I surprised myself by also liking the additional races. I liked the two day concept as I was able to watch great races for two days, and, I thought the Pro-ride was playing as entertaining a surface as I believe I’ve seen on BC day.
To me, whatever problems BC has, I’d have to conclude they made some very correct decisions by my judgment. If it’s necessary to remove thepurse supplements due to finances and preserving the cup then so be it, if that is in fact the case.
January 12th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Im not sure that the now two day event is necessarily a bad idea. Obviously they have some major issues that need to be resolved. In my opinion they should consider themselves lucky that 2008 Breeders Cup went off without any problems from the Pro Ride, considering whats happened recently. And what about the Delmar debacle in 2007 meet and of coarse last years mess with missing racing days. This sport may not withstand another catastrophic breakdown with the whole world watching. There better be some decisions made about the surface before the 2009 card.
January 12th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
I read Blum’s piece. Let’s see - the board clearly listened to the feedback about the stakes program and did an about face post haste. Yet he is unhappy. What, that the board and management were fallible and made a mistake? Or that they were sensitive enough to the constituents to rectify the lapse in judgement. Immediately. As far as the stakes program goes beyond 09, I think Farish’s point is we don’t know what the future holds for anyone’s economic cup. But I think the BC board and management has heard the message about the stakes program loud and clear.
Blum had the idiotic temerity to ask why the BC invested a reserve fund in the stock market where it made a fat return for 20 years? Wants to know why things didn’t go so well this past year? Um, eh, Mr. Blum, checked anyone’s returns in the past year? I see, so the BC board was supposed to be prescient enough to see the market crash in advance? Were you?
And last, may I point out that the CEO, Greg Avioli, is not a one man show and that he can only implement any idea with board approval. So, he is not the one at fault here. And the board is the one that wanted to slash the budget and not touch the still plentiful reserve fund. Not Avioli - he is only trying to make it all work with many conflicting agendas…and in a bad economic climate. Instead of phoning it in and going with the same old plan year after year, he brings innovation, energy and passion to the table - whether you like all of his ideas or not. Blum thinks he could do better, no doubt?
Anyone realize it’s really ok if the original 1982 mission statement of the BC changes or expands as times change in our sport and the world?
While I don’t agree with everything the BC board does, or what anyone does in this sport for that matter…to attack instead of presenting solutions only makes Blum another prime example of the “problem” in this game. Hardly part of any “solution.”
January 12th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
When racing appoints non racing people to leadership positions, a lot is lost, as in this case. How would you like to be sitting in 1st class on an airliner and your doctor and lawyer get on the mike and say “relax and enjoy the ride, we are flying you today”.
How far do you think you would get and with how much confidence ? Absurd ! to hold a championship meeting (BC) on an unproven surface (2 years in a row) owned by a potentially bankrupt company is tantamount to disaster. If this charade is at risk to continue, let’s move it to Europe where we know it will be protected by responsible and experienced horsemen !
January 12th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
Barbara,
I may be wrong, but I think you missed the point. Breeders, who put the money in the investment fund (and who pay BC staff salaries), want these reserves to be used for the stakes program. They don’t want it to just sit there in case of another bad turn in the future. The time is now! The money needs to used to keep the stakes program running, starting today, if needed.
January 12th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Alison, curious if you read Blum’s entire diatribe? Without a reserve fund any organization is inviting certain failure. Using a portion of the reserve fund is a good idea. The board erred to say they would not use it at all - they have corrected and deserve credit for listening to the breeders - so what more is it that you want them to do now? THAT was my point. As for the BC reserve fund - it would be no where near the amount that they have now (or the larger amount of one year ago) if it had not been invested in the market. The stakes program has been supported for 25 years and will be so next year (and after that as well given the recent hue and cry), and the reserve fund will be accessed if need be - which it should be - on that I definitely agree. But accessing the reserve fund is a separate matter than to question the investment of the reserve fund in the stock market by Blum - which is ridiculous given the stellar return until 2008.
As for how the BC is funded, no, not all of the money comes from the breeders. Much of it has come from the revenues produced by the event itself in the past. I think the BC is making a mistake to slash the marketing budget in this down economic cycle as well - and I agree with your premise that the “time is now.” While, as I said, I don’t agree with certain BC board decisions…much of what Blum wrote was pure hogwash, his tone was not helpful, just incendiary, and he of all folk should have known better.
January 12th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
Ray,
You have reached a couple of erroneous conclusions from Peter Blum’s commentary.
One: That it should serve as a reminder to breeders to continue nominating foals.
My point: The BC responds ONLY to threats to it’s financial lifeline. Therefore, anyone who agrees with Blum should refuse to nominate in 2009.
Two: Stallion and foal nominators can vote in the election of Trustees who, in turn, vote in the Board.
My point: You cannot truly be so naive. The voting system gives stallion nominators an overwhelming advantage. That alone gives the Farishs complete control. Nevertheless, just to be certain, the Trustee nominations and the election are rigged to make sure the “right people” are elected.
Anyway, the BC rulers will ignore anything written here, just as they will ignore Peter Blum.
If enough people want a reformed Breeders’ Cup, they must start from scratch by forming a brand-new organization. Give it any name that suits and get those nominations. Then the current Breeders’ Cup ( a misnomer) will fade away from self-inflicted wounds and monetary malnutrition.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:02 am
Garrett Redmond said:
“If enough people want a reformed Breeders’ Cup, they must start from scratch by forming a brand-new organization. Give it any name that suits and get those nominations. Then the current Breeders’ Cup ( a misnomer) will fade away from self-inflicted wounds and monetary malnutrition.”
Since the horse racing industry is lame, your excellent idea should be applied to create a new racing league with integrity, transparency and quality racing as its top priorities. The new BC could be foaled from it. Breaking away from the American Horse Council (another misnomer) would be needed since advocating equine exploitation goes against quality racing.
January 23rd, 2009 at 6:49 am
[...] Peter Blum that appeared in the Thoroughbred Times of Jan. 10, 2009, and was referenced here in the Paulick Report. Sanan wrote a rebuttal to Blum that was published in the Jan. 24 edition of [...]